The huge oversized 243-page book Diversity Lane/ A Liberal Family Saga now available at the Diversity Lane website! Endorsed by FrontPage, Townhall, Brent Bozell, American Thinker and tons of others– THE most enjoyable conservative book of the year, guaranteed.
For more fun visit us at the Diversity Lane Page at Facebook or visit Zack Rawsthorne’s Facebook Profile to shoot the breeze. Don’t forget to read more at our website www.diversitylane.com or our blog www.diversitylane.wordpress.com.
Join silver expert David Morgan of Silver-Investor.Com and Michael Maloney in Las Vegas, where the famous Luxor Casino pyramid provides the perfect backdrop for a discussion of the latest gold and silver investment pyramid schemes.
Gold and silver are “honest money,” David says, but “like any financial instrument there’s good and bad in it.” Among the bad: pyramid schemes luring unwary investors with promises of rich profits on silver coins and numismatics.
The basic premise is this, Mike explains: the new investor comes in on the bottom of the pyramid, agreeing to purchase one or two or 10 coins each month at a certain price, which is considerably higher than retail price of the bullion or the collectable premium of the coin. The new investor also brings in two new buyers to join the club. When the two new buyers purchase their coins at the same ridiculously high price, the original investor who recruited them receives a small cut of the profit, and the bulk of the profit gets passed up the line to the top of the pyramid. The idea is that as the investor works his way up the pyramid, his take grows larger and larger, eventually covering the cost of his own monthly coin purchase.
There are several problems with this model, Mike explains. For one thing, “what happens is, there comes an end to every bull market. And 82% of the people that have come in don’t end up breaking even. They end up transferring some of their wealth to the top 18%.”
The “entrepreneurs” who started the pyramid sit at the top, skimming the majority of the profit. “They’re the ones that are really getting wealthy off of this,” Mike says. “Everybody is paying them, and they never go out of the top of this pyramid. They are sitting at the top permanently.”
Bottom line—know what you’re doing, David says. “Keep it simple, know what you’re buying, pay a fair price to the dealer, start small until you’re comfortable, and go on from there. These types of schemes, to my knowledge, never work out for you. After all, Mike and I are looking out for you.”
What is a Pyramid Scheme?
Pyramid schemes now come in so many forms it makes spotting them difficult though they share in one overriding characteristic. They promise investors huge profits from recruiting others to join their program, rather than proceeds from real investments or sales of goods. Some pyramids claim to sell products, but they often simply use the merchandise to hide their pyramid structure.
There are two telltale signs for these schemes: inventory front-loading plus a lack of retail sales.
Inventory front-loading is when a firm’s incentive program forces a recruit to buy loads of products, often at inflated prices. If this occurs in the company’s distribution system, the people at the top of the pyramid reap substantial profits, regardless of the fact that little or no product is sold to the market. While folks at the bottom make excessive payments for inventory which simply accumulates.
Lackluster retail selling is also a red flag that a pyramid exists. Pyramid schemes typically claim their product is selling in huge volume but upon close examination, the sales either occur between people who are inside the pyramid or to new recruits who are joining the pyramid con, not to consumers out in the general public.
In a pyramid scheme, the pitch can be quite seductive as delivery on a high rate of return to a few early investors over a short period of time can produce temporary credibility and testimonials. Yet, pyramid schemes are illegal for a reason… they inevitably must fall apart. When the scheme collapses, most investors find themselves at the bottom, unable to recoup their losses.
How to Spot a Pyramid Scheme?
1. Beware of plans with exaggerated earnings claims, especially when there are no underlying product sales or investment profits.
2. Be careful of any plan that offers commissions for recruiting new sellers, particularly when there is no product involved or when there is a distinct, up-front membership fee. Also don’t assume that a presence of products or services, removes all danger. The Federal Trade Commission has caught pyramids offering investment opportunities, charity benefits, off-shore credit cards, jewelry, women’s underclothing, makeups, cleaning supplies, and even energy.
3. If a plan purports to sell a product or service, check to see whether its price is inflated, if new members must buy costly inventory, or whether members make most “sales” to other members instead of the public. If these conditions exist, the purported “sale” of the product or service may simply mask a pyramid scheme that promotes an endless chain of recruiting and inventory loading.
4. Beware of programs that claim to have secret plans, foreign connections or special relationships that are difficult to verify.
5. Beware of any plans that delay meeting its commitments while asking members to hang in there. Many pyramid schemes advertise that they are in the preliminary launch phase, yet they never can nor do launch for by definition a pyramid scheme can never fulfill its obligations to all its participants. To survive, pyramids need to keep and attract as many members as possible. Thus, promoters try to appeal to a sense of community or solidarity keeping its marketing arm intact, while rebuking outsiders or doubters.
6. Finally, beware of programs that attempt to capitalize on the public’s interest in newly deregulated markets or high technology.
Bottom Line: Every investor fantasizes about becoming wealthy overnight, but in fact, getting rich is usually the result of enterprising ideas and hard intelligent work. If it sounds too good to be true, chances are high that a con is going on.
—-
Of course, you can avoid all that by buying from a source of Gold and Silver with a good reputation. So, why wait till prices go back through the roof again? Buy from GoldSilver.com!
A free 14-page Club EWI report shows you 5 ways trendlines can improve your trading decisions
By Elliott Wave International
Technical analysis of financial markets does not have to be complicated. Here are EWI, our main focus is on Elliott wave patterns in market charts, but we also employ other tools — like trendlines. Are they effective? You be the judge — once you read the free 14-page Club EWI report by EWI’s Chief Commodity Analyst Jeffrey Kennedy. Enjoy this free excerpt. Read more.
The huge oversized 243-page book Diversity Lane/ A Liberal Family Saga now available at the Diversity Lane website! Endorsed by FrontPage, Townhall, Brent Bozell, American Thinker and tons of others– THE most enjoyable conservative book of the year, guaranteed.
For more fun visit us at the Diversity Lane Page at Facebook or visit Zack Rawsthorne’s Facebook Profile to shoot the breeze. Don’t forget to read more at our website www.diversitylane.com or our blog www.diversitylane.wordpress.com.
That’s George W. Bush’s daughter Barbara, legitimizing the Sodomite lifestyle.
Not only this, there is this quotable quote from President George W. Bush — Sodomite lifestyle enabler — himself from Associated Baptist News:
In discussing a meeting he had with Texas evangelist and one-time Southern Baptist leader James Robison, for example, Bush reportedly confided in Wead, “I think he wants me to attack homosexuals.” But, the future president said, he told Robison: “‘Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I’m not going to kick gays, because I’m a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?’”
Bush also expresses concern over an aide’s report from a Christian Coalition meeting, according to the Times article. Reading from the report, he told Wead, “‘This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It’s hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however.’”
“This is an issue I have been trying to downplay,” Bush continued. “I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays.”
That quote alone; proves to this Fundamentalist Baptist Christian, who is also a Paleo-Conservative — that George W. Bush was never a true-blue Conservative. But rather a liberal in G.O.P. clothing.
The Bush dynasty is no stranger to generational conflict: father and son differed over deposing Saddam Hussein, raising taxes and the role of the United Nations.
Now it is father and daughter who find themselves at odds over a weighty issue.
Barbara Bush, one of the twin daughters of George W. Bush, will endorse same-sex marriage on Tuesday, publicly breaking ranks with a father who, as president, pushed for a constitutional amendment banning such unions.
Ms. Bush, 29, has taped a video calling on New York to legalize gay marriage. A bill to do that was defeated in the state in 2009. She describes the issue as a matter of conscience and equality.
“I am Barbara Bush, and I am a New Yorker for marriage equality,” she says in the brief message, sponsored by an advocacy group. “New York is about fairness and equality. And everyone should have the right to marry the person that they love.”
The video ends with Ms. Bush, who lives in Manhattan, imploring the state’s residents to “join us.”
Ms. Bush is the latest child of a prominent Republican leader to embrace same-sex marriage, long considered anathema to the conservative movement. Gay rights advocates have been quick to seize on the generational split as evidence that the acceptance of same-sex marriage is blind to party affiliation and family values.
I think it would be wise for the Conservative Christian movement to rise as one and say, “Never Again!” to electing a man based upon family pedigree and to elected someone who does not pass muster or a good vetting by the Conservative Christian movement.
Further more, let me say this; this movement of the Conservative Republicans away from traditional family values is troubling. I say this without shame at all; I am a Conservative Christian, in the sense that I do support traditional family values. However, I do not believe in the use of any sort of Government of imposing my beliefs on anyone else. That is what Muslims do with Sharia Law — and I do not support that at all. However, for the daughter of a so-called “Conservative Republican” to come out and support a law such as this, is totally repugnant and should show all parties concerned, just what sort of a Conservative that the Bush dynasty really was. In this sense; and only in this sense, Pastor Chuck Baldwin was absolutely correct.
I believe that all Conservative Christians in the 2012 elections should really prayerfully consider the persons running in the Republican primaries and if the persons running for President do not pass muster; do not vote for them, at all.
We as Conservative Christians must decide what our allegiances are to; to the Republican Party or to the the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word. There is no middle ground, choose your side today.
Two of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s closest allies, his new vice president, Omar Suleiman, and his defense minister, Hussein Tantawi, are quietly working on a plan under which Mubarak would step down from power, according to a U.S. scholar who has been staying in regular touch with the Egyptian political and military leadership.
“They want to be sure that Mubarak is going to cooperate,” said Stephen P. Cohen, president of the Institute for Middle East Peace and Development and a longtime confidant of Egyptian and Israeli leaders.
The two-part plan, according to Cohen, would involve the immediate removal of 100 members of the Egyptian Parliament whose election this past fall was seen as illegitimate. They would be replaced by 100 candidates who were barred from running in the election or who were defeated because of government meddling in the election process.
A second possible step would be the organization of new parliamentary and presidential elections. The plan, according to Cohen, “requires [Mubarak] to give up his office.” Asked whether Mubarak would do that, Cohen answered, “He is getting ready to do so.”
***
The White House on Sunday dispatched a former ambassador to Egypt, Frank Wisner, to fly to Cairo to urge the Egyptian government to, at the very least, embrace political reforms.
“As someone with deep experience in the region,” a White House official says, Wisner “is meeting with Egyptian officials and providing his assessment.”
Senior officials would not discuss whether Wisner was charged with showing Mubarak the door. Wisner, the ambassador to Egypt from 1986 to 1991, is currently in Cairo.
A major readjustment to administration rhetoric in response to the crisis in Egypt came on Sunday when the phrase of the day was “orderly transition.”
The president issued a statement saying he supports “an orderly transition to a government that is responsive to the aspirations of the Egyptian people.” And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took to the Sunday shows to make that argument. “it needs to be an orderly, peaceful transition to real democracy,” she said.
But transition to what?
[…]
One administration official tells ABC News: “we don’t know.”
RACISTS like this, are begging for war. Let’s give them one. It is 220,000,000 white people, against 37,000,000 blacks. You know what a genocide looks like? You don’t, because there is no one left, to remember it. Be? smart, though. Let them, make the first violent moves. Let the people, see their violence. Let them give us a reason. Be patient. Do not move, as an individual. Wait. Keep giving them rope, they need, to hang themselves. LOL!!!
It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the Act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.…
In the final analysis, this Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch, and that seems to fit. It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed. There are simply too many moving parts in the Act and too many provisions dependent (directly and indirectly) on the individual mandate and other health insurance provisions — which, as noted, were the chief engines that drove the entire legislative effort — for me to try and dissect out the proper from the improper, and the able-to-stand-alone from the unable-to-stand-alone. Such a quasi-legislative undertaking would be particularly inappropriate in light of the fact that any statute that might conceivably be left over after this analysis is complete would plainly not serve Congress’ main purpose and primary objective in passing the Act. The statute is, after all, called “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” not “The Abstinence Education and Bone Marrow Density Testing Act.” The Act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker.
This is going to really put a monkey wrench Obama’s plans. Although, I tend to think that the Obama Administration will argue it to the Supreme Court of the United States. The reaction from the White House is going to be an interesting one.
I do believe, that if this Healthcare Bill is scrapped, and they Democrats lose this issue; this may could very well render President Obama unelectable in 2012. Something tells me, that this entire Presidency is going to be Jimmy Carter all over again.
Stay Tuned.
Update: Memeorandum has the roundup of reactions so far.
That aside, the pattern once again has held that every Republican-appointed judge has ruled against the law’s constitutionality and every Democratic-appointed-judge has ruled for it. Now, the ultimate arbiter is the Supreme Court, where Republican appointees hold a 5-4 majority, though one of those 5 (Anthony Kennedy) is not a completely down-the-line Republican.
Given this divide, wouldn’t it make sense to… let elected officials decide? That’s the logic of judicial restraint, anyway, and it’s logic conservatives used to employ about a host of topics. But that was before they gained the ability to win huge victories in the courts that they couldn’t win at the ballot box.
What is a bit surprising is that Vinson went further and held that the mandate isn’t “severable” from the rest of the law — which means that the whole law is unconstitutional, not just the part that requires people to buy insurance. That’s unusual insofar as courts like to be modest when striking down statutes; if they can find a section of it unconstitutional while preserving the rest of it, they’ll do so out of respect for the democratic branches that enacted it. In this case, however, as we’ve been told by Democrats many times, you can’t have universal health care unless you force people to pay for it. Cutting the mandate out of O-Care and keeping the rest of the scheme intact would create a nightmare scenario in which people avoid buying insurance until they get sick, with insurers required to accept them by the new rules governing preexisting conditions. Before long, that cost burden would drive most insurers into bankruptcy, with the golden age of a public option or single-payer soon to follow.
[…]
A fun fact about ObamaCare: Unlike virtually every other federal statute, it contains no “severabililty clause” at the end requesting that if any part of it should be held unconstitutional in court, the rest should be preserved as good law. Vinson actually mentions that fact in the opinion and notes that an earlier draft of the law did contain such a clause, suggesting that it was deliberately dropped because even Congress agrees that you can’t sever any one part from such an elaborate scheme. The truth, however, may be more prosaic: According to a Democratic aide who spoke to the Times back in November, the clause was omitted because of … an “oversight.” Oops!
WASHINGTON — Nearly two-thirds of cars on the road could have more corn-based ethanol in their fuel tanks under an Environmental Protection Agency decision Friday.
The agency said that 15 percent ethanol blended with gasoline is safe for cars and light-duty trucks manufactured between 2001 and 2006, expanding an October decision that the higher blend is safe for cars built since 2007.The maximum gasoline blend has been 10 percent ethanol.
This decision was made despite repeated warnings from industry experts who have been pleading for more time to perform exhaustive testing. Were they being overly cautious? That’s a difficult argument to make, particularly since we told you last month that one delay in testing came from the fact that the higher ethanol blend fuel was melting down the seals in pumps and storage tanks during testing.
The laundry list of potential problems from this decision is extensive. Asking distributors to carry yet another fuel (even if it doesn’t melt their pumps) will require logistical juggling, equipment changes, new signs and other expenses which are inevitably passed on down to the consumer. Ethanol burns hotter than conventional fuel, leading to earlier failure of catalytic converters. (An expensive fix, as any of you who have been hit with it at the garage will attest.)
All of this is still being pushed under the cloak of a more environmentally friendly solution to energy challenges, a claim which current science has increasingly put in doubt. But would it at least produce any type of savings as we fight to get the budget under control?
Rather than furthering his goal to make America “the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015,” however, Obama’s focus on biofuels as the way “to break our dependence on oil” would have the opposite effect if it means sending billions more taxpayers dollars to corn country to finance ethanol infrastructure, Cox said. “Building an ethanol infrastructure at taxpayer’s expense will just lock us further into the past rather than lead us to tomorrow’s energy future,” added Cox, who heads EWG’s Ames, Iowa, office.
Jazz makes a very, very, very, very good point here:
This is clearly a victory for King Corn, but lies in stark contrast to the President’s stated goals of Winning the Future. Exit question: Even if gas stations manage to offer this for cars built in 2001 and after, how will they ensure drivers of older vehicles don’t wind up putting it in their vehicles without retooling the entire delivery system?
Good question. I can see the lawsuits coming now. The first idiot that accidentally puts the corn-laced fuel into an older vehicle and tears the snot out of his engine; and ends up suing the gas station, the fuel delivery company and the oil company that produced the product and comes away with a few million dollars — will cause this little program to be stopped in it’s tracks. Think it would not happen? Think again; there are tons and I do mean TONS of lawyers out there, that are chomping at the bit to take a lawsuit like this and make money off of it.
Updated to add: ….and there is a alternative scenario — What will happen is, some person, who is barely getting by and making minimum wage, and can barely afford a car. This person will accidentally fuel up with this Ethanol laced gas, it will gum up his motor and the poor man will end up having to junk the car and will have scrape around for another one. That is the part that really bothers me. The fact that liberals are so damned hell-bent on fulfilling an agenda that they do not think of all of the possibilities — and because of that, someone out there, not necessarily someone of means; gets screwed in the end. That my friends is the sad part.
Just another example of your feckless Government at work. 🙄
I am going to be totally honest with you all; I do not even like Andrew Breitbart —- But this video right here, is pretty darned interesting.
If everything in this video is true, the Obama Administration could be looking at some problems down the road. To be fair to Mr. Breitbart, he also goes after Republicans for their cowardice in not checking this out. In short, it is fraud on a massive scale and hopefully when this story breaks, someone in the Republican Party — like in the House, will order investigations. The really funny part is, Breitbart says he hired someone from Huffington Post — of all places — to debunk the story and he could not.
Of course the cynical person in me thinks that nothing will become of this; because of race and other factors, none of the people involved in this scandal will see justice. It is just how our system works. Only those who ruffle the wrong feathers — so to speak — are the ones who are actually prosecuted.
FRANCES FOX PIVEN: “She wouldn’t even harm a fly.” “In the course of this brouhaha, it becomes apparent that leftist academics don’t want to be and should not be taken seriously, that the cultural elite can dish out violent rhetoric but cannot take being called on it, that the NYT has blundered into another loser of an argument, and that people who want to waste their tuition money should major in sociology, which has obviously become the redoubt of clueless, revolutionary manqués. . . . Piven denied to the NYT that she advocated violence in the article. It’s hard to see how that defense stands up, unless she is saying that she didn’t know what happened in Greece when she urged the American unemployed to take action ‘like the strikes and riots’ there.”
At the same time, tens of thousands of protesters marched through Athens in the largest and most violent protests since the country’s budget crisis began last fall. Angry youths rampaged through the center of Athens, torching several businesses and vehicles and smashing shop windows. Protesters and police clashed in front of parliament and fought running street battles around the city.
Witnesses said hooded protesters smashed the front window of Marfin Bank in central Athens and hurled a Molotov cocktail inside. The three victims died from asphyxiation from smoke inhalation, the Athens coroner’s office said. Four others were seriously injured there, fire department officials said.
Just for the record. And here’s the conclusion:
“In sum, this was another week in which the media and cultural elites acted stupidly and were called on it. Twice in a row now they’ve tried to paint their opposition as violent thugs only to be revealed themselves as snobbish poseurs, projecting their own thuggish urges onto others. It was another week in which those living off the productive labor of others deride those others, try to undermine them, and are in the process undermining the very society which makes it possible for such foolish poseurs to live in comfort.”
Looks like this situation is a bit more complicated than many first thought.
Looks like this is going to turn out to be a very interesting story.
But, as a Paleo-Conservative, I simply say, this is what happens when American involves itself in foreign entanglements. This is that blowback; and Israel is going to suffer for it.
I quote many people here on this blog of mine. But rare is it that I end up quoting me! 😛
Anyhow, last night, I was a bit upset at something that I read yesterday; and I wrote the following:
Say what you want; but I am really beginning to lose faith in the Republican Party, the whole idea of this damned Tea Party and the entire political process. It is all a big dog and pony show anymore. In other words, sometimes, I believe that Lew Rockwell and Yes, Ron Paul might just be absolutely right about the whole thing and I, yes, I, might have been wrong. I might not agree with everything Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul says — but I think they’ve been right all along. American Politics; especially among Republicans is rotten to the core and all that the people on “The Hill” care about is their own political careers.
Well, 24 hours later and a few frantic e-mails from some of my readers, of whom I did not know I even had; I need to clear the air here.
No, I am not going to leave the Conservative side of the fence and become a Democrat again. Are you kidding?!?!?! 🙄 I could never support that party again; especially after everything that I have learned about how they do business.
No, I am not going to join the ranks of the anarchists and start devolving into radical stupidity. I haven’t lost my mind yet folks! 😉
Nope, I was simply venting about my dismay about the Republican Party in it’s current state. That’s all. 😀 I’m not going anywhere and/or changing any views about anything.
So, relax gang… You have not lost me. I simply wish that the Conservative Republicans would fight the battle the right way; and not the stupid way. The problem is, the Republicans here as of late, are stuck on stupid. So are some of their bloggers. 🙄
Ok….Ok… Seeing that I am a Paleo-Conservative. How come when Barack Obama is warning about terrorism, it’s a joke. But when George W. Bush did it, it was truly serious? Just sayin’….
I saw this over at the New York Times and I thought it warranted a comment:
MY grandmother, who was born in 1905, spoke often about the immense changes she had seen, including the widespread adoption of electricity, the automobile, flush toilets, antibiotics and convenient household appliances. Since my birth in 1962, it seems to me, there have not been comparable improvements.
Of course, the personal computer and its cousin, the smartphone, have brought about some big changes. And many goods and services are now more plentiful and of better quality. But compared with what my grandmother witnessed, the basic accouterments of life have remained broadly the same.
The income numbers for Americans reflect this slowdown in growth. From 1947 to 1973 — a period of just 26 years — inflation-adjusted median income in the United States more than doubled. But in the 31 years from 1973 to 2004, it rose only 22 percent. And, over the last decade, it actually declined.
This article goes on to lament about how America’s standing in the world has fallen and how America’s level of income has fallen, in comparison to the rest of the world.
There is a simple reason for that; and that is Globalism. We have sacrificed America’s standing in the World and our financial superiority in the world at the altar of globalism. Free trade has killed America’s standing. Do not misunderstand me here; I am not for outright protectionism, however, I believe ALL of these so-called “free trade agreements” are unfairly slanted against America. We need to renegotiate this silly agreements with these foriegn countries and if those countries do not agree to the new terms; we should simply revoke the agreements. The we should go back to the old system of strict tariffs on those who wish to import their goods into this Country.
Until we do this; we are simply spinning our wheels.
The sick and sad part is that President Obama, when he was campaigning promised to do this very thing. Now that he is elected, he has done nothing. Which speaks volumes for the man and the Party that he represents. Perhaps now populists will that Democratic Party, for that which it has become; the part of parasites and socialism — instead of the party of the common man — of which it was founded.
I’m a libertarian; meaning, beyond foreign policy, there’s not much a paleoconservative like you would like about me. I’m for gay rights; free trade (NAFTA or no); open borders; etc. However, I cannot help but feel some pity for how old fashioned conservatives are treated. For one, it confuses the political spectrum to have them excluded.
Here’s hoping that, post-War On Terror, people like you will define the American Right.
and….:
Here’s something for your fellow paleos to be encouraged by; neocons are losing their grip on intellectual discourse. Oh, they still have the op-eds; but, their ideas are ridiculed in the university by reputable people. Seize the initiative, and use this opportunity to critique the neoconservatives and define what conservatism, properly conceived, consists in. Don’t compromise with the neocons, libertarians, liberals, progressives, or anyone else.
Those little e-mails make it worth every nasty e-mail, troll comment or technical glitch! 😀
I’m glad to see that someone is actually reading here. Oh noes! Does this mean I have to act like a respectable writer now?Horrors! 😮 😉 😛
This bunch of silly nonsense comes from The Politico:
The federal lawsuits against last year’s health care overhaul were greeted with eye-rolling and snickers from many conventional legal scholars.
Nobody’s laughing now.
A federal judge in Virginia ruled late last year that a key underpinning of the health care law stretches the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution past the breaking point, while another judge in Florida is expected to rule on Monday. Both cases are likely to proceed toward the Supreme Court.
And the challenges to the health care reform law are just the most visible sign of a broad, national flowering of state efforts to find shelter from the federal government in sometimes-neglected corners of the Constitution that touch conventional political hot buttons such as immigration and gun control, and exotic ones, such as citizenship and currency.
“This has been brewing for decades, and it just needed a catalyst to set it off. The Obama health care package happened to be that catalyst,” said Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. “It emboldened us to assert states’ rights with regard to an array of different issues in which we are feeling that the federal government has overstepped its bounds.”
The model for this revival is the transformation of the Second Amendment from a hazily interpreted legal backwater to the core of a new gun-rights movement. And while the Constitution is often invoked, and even misquoted, for all manner of conservative causes, perhaps the truest meaning of the new phrase constitutional conservatism is found in the broad, imaginative and sometimes quirky new efforts to hem in the power of the federal government.
The Supremacy Clause, which asserts the primary role of the federal courts and the Constitution, could stymie much of this activity. But it’s all part of a movement that Bruce Ackerman, a liberal constitutional scholar from Yale Law School, told POLITICO constitutes “the most serious challenge” to the current constitutional regime since it took shape in the New Deal and the Civil Rights era.
So, the Republican Party is all about the Constitution now? Seems mighty funny to me that all of the sudden that the Republican Party is all about the Constitution now; but back in 2003, when their feckless leader George W. Bush, which I did not vote for — decided to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq, that none of the Constitutional purists were around to challenge him then. They, like most Conservatives in the beltway, cheered as President George W. Bush invaded Iraq, based on what we now know to be faulty information.
I also find it to be highly ironic that during the Presidency of George W. Bush; a white American — that not one person in the Republican Party questioned his tactics, spending or actions on foreign policy. However, now that there is a liberal and yes, black President in the White House; the Republican Party has turned into the Constitutional purist party. They claim that they want to repeal Obama’s healthcare plan to save money. I call B.S. on this one. They want to do to protect their biggest donor — the Healthcare industry. Further more, I believe it is because a good majority of the Republicans on the hill are just straight racist, like some other people I know.
Say what you want; but I am really beginning to lose faith in the Republican Party, the whole idea of this damned Tea Party and the entire political process. It is all a big dog and pony show anymore. In other words, sometimes, I believe that Lew Rockwell and Yes, Ron Paul might just be absolutely right about the whole thing and I, yes, I, might have been wrong. I might not agree with everything Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul says — but I think they’ve been right all along. American Politics; especially among Republicans is rotten to the core and all that the people on “The Hill” care about is their own political careers.
I hate to be the one to admit it. But it is just damned true. 😡
Brownstein writes: ‘The new data show that white voters not only strongly preferred Republican House and Senate candidates but also registered deep disappointment with President Obama’s performance, hostility toward the cornerstones of the current Democratic agenda, and widespread skepticism about the expansive role for Washington embedded in the party’s priorities. On each of those questions, minority voters expressed almost exactly the opposite view from whites.’ Comment: Indeed, because these white voters are generally creative, ambitious, studious and self-reliant while many of today’s blacks, whose lives are modeled after angry, nonproductive agitators like Jackson and Sharpton, are often the opposite.
Brownstein writes: ‘David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political strategist, said in an interview that “it would be a mistake to take exit polls from a midterm election and extrapolate too far” toward 2012. Conditions—and the composition of the electorate—will change a great deal by then, he said. But he acknowledged that Obama must “reset” the public perception about his view of government’s role. Axelrod… also made it clear that he sees as a “particularly instructive” model for 2012 the case of Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet in Colorado, who won his contest last fall by mobilizing enough minorities, young people, and socially liberal, well-educated white women to overcome a sharp turn toward the GOP among most of the other white voters in his state.‘ Comment: ‘Conditions… will change a great deal by then’? Hardly. The public has a very well-founded idea of where Obama stands and conditions are not going to change, or change that perception. And look at who is supporting Obama – well-educated white women who just might, over time, understand that his agenda is harming them and their own children. Many apparently are just not smart enough to know it yet even with all their advanced degrees… or because of them.
Brownstein writes: ‘Meanwhile, Republicans, with their 60 percent showing, notched the party’s best congressional result among white voters in the history of modern polling.’ Comment: And that number is not going to go down again. Because the media anger generated toward conservatism and Republicans always has been based on the theory that Democrats could do much better for the American people. Now the contrast between media rhetoric and reality is in.
Brownstein writes: ‘The racial gulf was similar when voters were asked whether they believed that Obama’s policies would help the nation in the long run. By 70 percent to 22 percent, minorities said yes; by 61 percent to 34 percent, whites said no.’ Comment: Because whites are generally well-disciplined higher-income people who generate wealth and pay taxes to the government. Meanwhile many blacks are collecting money and benefits from the government at a level that is absolutely unsustainable.
Brownstein writes: ‘Democrats have been losing support among blue-collar white voters since the 1960s, but in this election, they hit one of their lowest points ever. In House campaigns, the exit poll found, noncollege whites preferred Republicans by nearly 2-to-1 with virtually no gender gap: White working-class women—the so-called waitress moms—gave Republicans almost exactly as many of their votes as blue-collar men did.’Comment: That is why they are referred to as “working class” voters. Because they know what it means to really work for a living and get their hands dirty, not live on some elite college campus or work in a media newsroom or sit in a law office or collect welfare or work at a do-nothing government job. This is something that liberals do not understand – what it means to really work for a living.
Brownstein writes: ‘Rodolfo de la Garza, a political scientist at ColumbiaUniversity who studies Hispanics’ attitudes, says… More minority workers hold marginal positions in the private economy… so they were less likely to be shocked by the severity of the downturn—and more likely to turn to government, rather than the private sector, to help survive it. “They didn’t lose money on Wall Street; they had shitty jobs, if they had jobs, so where would they look to if not the [government]?” de la Garza asked.’ Comment: And why do ‘minority workers hold marginal positions in the private economy’ and need to look to the government? How about their poor academic achievement and dropout rate. How about their refusal to learn English. How about their lack of skills, education and ambition to better themselves. How about their terrible schools run by Democrat teacher unions. How about young black males walking around with their underwear hanging out and Democrats defending them at every turn. That is why they have “shitty jobs”, professor.
Brownstein writes: ‘Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University, says that (white) blue-collar disaffection from Democratic candidates reflects not only immediate economic distress but also a longer-term process of alienation from the party. “The noncollege whites … see themselves as a declining minority within the national Democratic Party, where they have very little control or influence on the policies,” he says. “The party is controlled by the coastal elites and nonwhites, and that is a very different kind of Democratic Party” than a generation ago.’Comment: Indeed. Working white people never have supported the kind of radicalism in the Democrat party today. As the old saying goes, “I did not abandon the Democrat party. The Democrat party abandoned me.”
Brownstein writes: ‘College-educated white women, though not immune to these trends, displayed more resistance. Although traditionally the most liberal portion of the white electorate, even these women cooled toward Democrats last year. In contrast to the majority support they provided Obama in 2008, they voted 55 percent to 43 percent for Republicans in 2010 House races. In the exit poll, most of them agreed that government was trying to do too much, and a slim majority of them said they wanted Congress to repeal the health care law.’Comment: Because some of these women finally are using their education to look at what is happening around them rather than reading about reality according toThe New York Times. It’s about time these females wised up like we conservative men have been suggesting for decades now.
Brownstein writes: ‘According to veteran conservative strategist Jeff Bell, all signs suggest that Obama has permanently antagonized much of the white electorate (nearly half of which this year identified itself as conservative in the exit poll). “The significance of the tea party is that it is not a situational vote,” says Bell, the policy director at the American Principles Project, a right-leaning advocacy group. “They are going to be militant even if, or when, the economy improves.… It’s significant if you have more voters who are willing to vote with the conservative coalition regardless of what’s going on with the economy.”Comment: Very good observation. White Tea Party activists are not going to sway even with an improving economy. They are smart people who will always remember how the Democrats manhandled America between 2008 and 2010. They are not going to let it happen again. They finally understand the Democrats all too well.
Wow…. Just Wow…
Screenshots in case it disappears: (click to make them bigger….)
Hypocrisy, thy name is RedState.
I mean, I could understand if it was Altright.com; but Redstate? Wow… That is interesting… 😮
Like the folks at RedState.com told me a good few months back:
The Internet always remembers, Mr. Adkins. And we’ll remember the next time you pop up your racist head, too.
Likewise Mr. Erickson, the internet always remembers YOUR racism and your straight up hypocrisy. Because I dispise those who say one thing and do another — I will continue to expose this sort of nonsense and call it for what it is. You and your crown princess of the Neo-Conservative movement Michelle Malkin, and the rest of the Neo-Conservative Blogosphere; who say one thing and do another, as usual. What is very shocking to me, is that CNN; a very respectable organization actually has this assclown on their network. It is a sad and very sick thing.
